This is NOT a bashing thread its for those with concerns to voice them about what we have seen so far, or people who have some input to help relieve those concerns. If you don't like the views here and just want to criticize please just move on...

From what we have seen so far from trailers and production vlogs it seems they are really trying to tell us these films are in the same spirit as the LOTR films but from what is actually shown they seem to have very little in common other than they are supposedly set in middle earth. I as well as others have concerns only from what we have seen so far, as well as rumors of things that just sound off compared to the caliber that LOTR established a decade ago.

Compared to Peter Jackson's own LOTR...

1. middle earth just seems brighter and more colorful and less "real" (very noticeably so IMO) 2..some of the dwarves, new creatures, and bad guys just look very cartoonish (again opinion) compared to the more realistic approach they took last time 3. the visual effects just don't seem to mesh with the scenes in some of what we seen in the trailer (Wargs looking like they were painted on top of the scene) 4. and so far the overall tone from riddles in the dark the overall showing of the dwarves just seems too comical, is this a comedy or an action adventure fantasy film?

Yes I know the Hobbit is a lighter tone book but PJ is the one who wanted the Hobbit to fit his model of the middle earth he created over a decade ago. As it seems at this point the films will not flow from one series to the other very well or the flow will be stretched thin, "like butter scraped over too much bread" It seems the tone is more in line with the source material but the dialogue and slapstick demeanor is not in line with what Tolkien wrote IMO. (Falling in a river doesn't need to be over the top laughing matter to be entertaining)

it seems to me while technology may have improved, but the quality of we have seen thus far IMO is not even as good as it was 10 years ago, Maybe PJ will pull it out at the 11th hour and the films will look great and similar to the middle earth we got with LOTR. But at this point its almost like we are entering some Alice in Wonderland/ middle earth hybrid. Which is not a good thing, I think 3-D and this new camera tech was the wrong way to go with the Hobbit, and they probably invested too much money in it. Instead of investing in other key aspects of these films. There are many defenders of PJ's choices, who hate hearing about the way things look to other people who do not like what they are seeing. Maybe they think we are being a buzzkill, but I see it more as genuine concern about seeing what we consider subpar compared to what we seen with LOTR. I know there are people already believing that these films will be bordering on the same greatness that LOTR had, they may or may not but it is yet to be seen. But I am genuinely concerned that this new version of middle earth is more about technological advances and seeing what "improvements" WETA has made (such as having Gollum so brightly lit in Riddles in the dark)

I haven't seen enough to really come to a judgment call on any of that yet. I think that you have some valid concerns, and I can certainly appreciate them. When I first heard that they were using new camera technology and 3d and whatnot I was quite concerned because I don't want this film to be a grand experiment in new technology. I also have not gotten over my sheer excitement at the trailer(s) to look carefully and critically at them.

As far as my opinion on the Gollum scene, it was always going to be a difficult lighting situation. Its a cave, no natural light, how do you film that?

There are places where the dwarves look cartoonish to me, but I don;t really have a problem with that as I have never actually seen a real life dwarf, so I can suspend disbelief for a bit on that. the great Goblin at the end of trailer looks terrible to me (then again so did the cave troll in FOTR, IMO).

Riddles in the dark is going to be comical moving to more sinister as the game progresses. That the way I read it in the book. the silly Hobbit matches wits with a very dangerous opponent, at first its a game, but then reality begins to set in that if he does not win, he dies. That's kind of the tone I get from the book as well. There will be lighthearted moments when Hobbits are involved (ie. Pippen and Merry at the broken gates of Isengard).

Overall, there is the chance we will see some of the over the top slapstick style in the movie, but I don't think it will dominate the film as it does at times in the trailer. There were little moments like that in LOTR movies, more in the EE than the Theatrical release, but they did not dominate the tone. I still think that it will hold to that sort of tone.

The pre-movie release merchandise and pictures and stuff of that nature I enjoy looking at but don't put a lot of stock in as far as representative of a final product. So...I'm not hitting the panic button yet, and probably won't, unless in the theatre I see something terribly wrong(First dwarf fart and I may walk out).

As far as my opinion on the Gollum scene, it was always going to be a difficult lighting situation. Its a cave, no natural light, how do you film that?

Dark places have been filmed before...This is not some sort of "first time ever!" thing, that PJ couldn't possibly get right because it's nearly impossible (reminds me of the "LOTR as unfilmable" defense of PJ's LOTR, which is true only because of CGI, not because of the story, which is inherently very cinematic).

An alternative to how PJ has done it is to just light the scene a bit less. Using Sting as a light source, or some other more subtle artificial source, would have been preferable, IMO.

While I am not as worried as sinister is about the final look, I do think that PJ has decided that the lighter tone of the book should be exaggerated heavily in the visuals, and this may not have been the best choice.

But then again, there are a number of design choices that I like better than what we saw in LOTR, such as many of the orcs. So, we'll see.

The Hobbit was never "part" of Lord of the Rings. It has always its own animal. The Hobbit is a fairytale and not high fantasy. Its style is different. Its vision of Middle-earth is limited and fanciful. Parts of it are cute, humorous and silly. I would expect any movies produced from this book to honor all of those qualities.

There is an old saw: Familiarity breeds contempt. I think that there is some of this at work here. I also believe that many false expectations have been clung to and cherished to the point that they limit the ability to see what is good.

I knew when Del Toro left and Peter announced his intent to film in 3D that we were looking at a horse of a different color. That feeling has grown with the passing of time but it has not been a negative thing for me. I think that these movies might just turn out to be the generational equivalent of what The Wizard of OZ was to the children of the 1930s-1940s-1950s-1960s...

I am looking forward to the the December opening. I think that I will not be disappointed by what has been put up on the screen. And though it will only follow the book's outline with embellishments from other sources within Tolkien's writings it will become The Hobbit and take us on the greatest adventure, an adventure filled with humor, pathos, and even grief. By its end we will know and love each and every one of the characters and see Middle-earth in a new and magic light. Just sayin'...Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain Life is an adventure, not a contest.

I think the way The Hobbit look has something to do with the 3D, but I remark, I am not an expert in cinema technology.

But the same happens with other movies: They look awesome in 3D, then I saw then in 2D in TV and they look a bit fake. Yes, I have notice those movies doesnīt look as great as when I saw them 3D in cinemas. (But Avatar) So I guess something of that happens with The Hobbit.

I donīt get the point about colors thought, I donīt see anything wrong with colors, or bright colors. The LOTR trilogy has color as well.

"Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began"Queen

The Hobbit was never "part" of Lord of the Rings. It has always its own animal. The Hobbit is a fairytale and not high fantasy. Its style is different. Its vision of Middle-earth is limited and fanciful. Parts of it are cute, humorous and silly. I would expect any movies produced from this book to honor all of those qualities.

Whilst I agree with you that the Hobbit is a very different book than LotR, I don't see any reason for not retelling the story in the style of the later work, especially as this is something Tolkien set out to do himself, but only completed in part.

Any differences in style between the books can be explained, as Tolkien did, by them having different (fictional) authors. The Hobbit is seen through Bilbo's perspective, and reflects his (rather eccentric) personality and world-view. LotR reflects Frodo's (broader and better educated) perspective. A Far Dragon is the best kind...

I am not concerned about the lighter tone, particularly for the first of three installments. Think about where this story is headed. By the end, our heroes will be in direct conflict with one another, and several main characters will die. How much more heartbreaking will it be to lose Thorin, Fili and Kili after three films with them than it was to lose Boromir after half a movie, or Theoden after two? Unlike FOTR, The Hobbit can take its time getting serious, and I think that's alright. In fact, a slower, gentler buildup through The Hobbit will probably enhance our experience of the LOTR trilogy, and of FOTR in particular.

On a related note: rewatching the LOTR trilogy recently, I was struck by the focus on Bilbo at the beginning and the end. When the elderly Bilbo declares at the end, "I'm quite ready for another adventure," I could see the young hobbit in the trailer running off with contract in hand. The whole saga is Bilbo's tale, in many ways. His courage, his pity, and his resilience set up the events that Frodo must endure (for which Bilbo is deeply sorry). Between The Hobbit and LOTR, we have a story about the effects of one generation's decisions on the generation that follows, for good or for ill.

Some of us have worried that The Hobbit film would be overwhelmed by LOTR's aesthetic, pacing, etc. I actually think that, if anything, LOTR will appear firmly grounded within the world of The Hobbit: with Bagshot row, Bilbo's trolls, Rivendell, Elrond, Galadriel, the wizards, Balin's tomb, Sting, Gollum, the Mithril rings, the Ring, Bilbo himself... Not until Rohan does LOTR move into truly new territory, and bring us finally out of the fairy tale into the world of Men.

I didn't mean to imply it had not been done before. the amount of visibility described in the book is a frighteningly hard thing to imagine. If you're a director trying to make a movie that is not a horror film at heart, how does one do this scene. I get having just sting light the scene and it could work just fine, but when you invested so much money in actors, and CGI animators, I guess you want to be able to light things up a bit so you get every nuance you can. Having not scene the entire scene I can't speak to the look of it. The biggest I've seen the snippet was on my 32' tv hooked up HDMI to my computer, so I'm still holding off worry.

The Hobbit takes place in a more peaceful innocent world. Yes there are dark places and evil creatures; but the darkness that is Mordor has not yet spread out its hand to cover the world in darkness. From what I can see so far, Jackson has captured that more innocent world. I would be upset if The Hobbit took place in the exact same version of Middle Earth as existed in the LoTRs.

I agree with you about the lighting, but this is an area where I never expected PJ to use the kind of approach that I prefer, since it's not his style, so it doesn't really disappoint me. I expect the main strength of "Riddles in the dark" to be in characterization and the interaction between Bilbo and Gollum and a progression from slight comedy to something more menacing and sinister. I also expect the use of music to be more prominent than the use of visual measures. If Jackson actually has decided to put more emphasis on atmosphere through visual cues, I will be pleasantly surprised.

The choice of brighter colours was made from the start I believe and seems to be something Del Toro and Jackson agreed upon as a way of differentiating The Hobbit from LoTR. How the tone of the story affects the rest of the visuals in the films remains to be seen (like you also note in your last paragraph).

if someone thinks something is great before even viewing it, that experience is going to be totally different than someone who goes into viewing something with an indifferent attitude. Everything I have seen so far has been seen thru my eyes with that attitude. No expectations no preconceived notions, good bad or other wise. What I have seen though has caused concern from things that Peter Jackson has said and things I have seen in the glimpses we have gotten. I can say there are many things that I do like but just as many that give me concern.

I agree the Hobbit was never part of LOTR but the film makers are the one who want to tie it all together. I have said time and again that there are only a few characters between the two and I personally would be quite content if they were two separate film series if they stuck closer to the Hobbit source material.

I could care less about blockbuster status like WB or Peter Jackson do, the biggest thing I care about is how respectful it is of the source material. Which in some aspects it seems they are doing a very good job with it in others they are throwing everything completely out the window and making up their own version of things. Things such as making Bolg the Torturer of DolGuldur total made up whether people will admit it or not. Having to tie Sauron into everything bad in middle earth making him more important than he was in the Hobbit which was merely a footnote.(one or two sentences between Gandalf and Thorin and Gandalf's pressing business to the south that's it) Bigger picture I don't buy it, personally I really don't care about Sauron, or making the ring more important than it was in the Hobbit which was a burglers tool nothing more. But they seem to be taking characters in general that looked and felt real in the LOTR trilogy and making cartoonish versions of many of them in this version which doesn't give me any sense of it being realistic like LOTR was. IMO making it harder to be believable.

I've said it before when Peter Jackson stuck to what Tolkien wrote his films were great and when he wrote whole sections of his own made up material his films were at their weakest IMO. Thats why I have concerns about all this made up information that is being included. The changes of characters involved in places and events they were never written into by Tolkien. I lack the faith in Peter Jackson that some people have, nothing personal I don't personally know the man. Sorry if I feel PJ's writing is not even close to the same caliber of Tolkien's and that I found the 3 plus hours of made up content in LOTR to be the worst parts of that trilogy.

... Theodred's funeral and Theoden's mourning are among the most moving scenes in all three films. And not part of Tolkien's original vision. Now when I read The Two Towers, Theoden's conversion/healing/waking up/what-have-you seems sort of trite by comparison. Just an example.

sinister71 wrote: if someone thinks something is great before even viewing it, that experience is going to be totally different than someone who goes into viewing something with an indifferent attitude. But it's okay for you to think something is bad before even viewing it? That's certainly how I read your OP. Clearly, you realized it yourself or you wouldn't have added your "this is not a bashing thread" disclaimer.

The reality is that the first film SHOULD be more innocent, childlike, and, in your words, "cartoonish." A brilliant way to present the trilogy is to capture the children's tale nature of Tolkien's work and then slowly but surely transition into the darker and more mature themes present in the LOTR by the end of film 3.

I recall how the portrayals of Merry and Pippin were bashed for being juvenile and one dimensional in FOTR. But, lo and behold, when the entire trilogy played out most Tolkien fans found their overall portrayal endearing. That's because key characters in films have story arcs. But when you are telling a story in multiple films, you're not going to get a complete picture in a single theatrical release. The same will be the case with The Hobbit trilogy. None of us here will be able to authoritatively judge the film version of The Hobbit and its characters until we've seen all three films, much less one film---and certainly not, as is the case here, a couple 2-minute trailers.

I always felt like the Dwarves started out their adventure with Songs and thoughts of Gold and reclaiming their home, etc. It is easy to be in Hobbiton and be cheerful and have no worries and fool around. I feel like Thorin is probably the only one who knows how difficult it is going to be and that death is a reality of their quest.

So it makes sense to me it will start out with the dwarves fooling around and not taking things seriously, even laughing off the Trolls (haha - that was close!), before seeing Smaug and and the Goblin armies and realizing that things just got real.

I think it's only realistic not to expect that these films will feel like LoTR, at least as far as the first film is concerned. The tone of the films might change when we get further into nr. 2 and to nr. 3. It's only reasonable IMO to expect quite a bit of comedy mixed with action in the first film, especially as a way of identifying with the characters.

Both The Hobbit and LoTR have the same concept art designers, so I expect many of the places to look similar visually, but since The Hobbit is set in a more innocent time, it's natural that they try to differentiate it from the look and feel of LoTR in several respects. The choice about brighter colours, if my memory serves me right, is a choice that was made early on when Del Toro still was the director and has been kept as a way of differentiating The Hobbit from LoTR.

Seen in isolation, I understand that parts of the trailer might give a cause for concern, but I think it's wise not to worry too much based on the trailer, or any rumours. In the trailer we see so many things out of context and just for a split second.

When they're talking about having LoTR mesh with The Hobbit, it seems to me that they're talking about slightly expanding the context of the story in the Hobbit films so we see that it's clearly set in Middle Earth and is part of it's history, not about having exactly the same tone and feel as the LoTR films. But the use of music, the landscapes, the cultural diversity in the designs and the measures they use to develop the characters I expect to be mainly the same, so my theory is that those who liked Jackson's general concept of story-telling in the LoTR-films ought to like The Hobbit films as well, even if they haven't got the same scale and scope.

Not sure if I actually adressed any of your concerns, or in the way you wanted. I guess I've changed from slighly worrying to feeling more relaxed about the films in general.

Tolkien did not complete the rewrite of the Hobbit because he realized that it would
[In reply to]

Can't Post

destroy the essence of the book. I do see lots of reasons for not recasting The Hobbit as a previous chapter of The Lord of the Rings. They all seem rather obvious and have been discussed at length here on TORn so I will not bother to list them. I think that Peter realized the differences and honors them by giving us The Hobbit's view of Middle-earth which is a shade off from the darker Lord of the Rings. The conceit that the story teller altered the world view works to a degree but I propose a further idea. Magic was leaving Middle-earth. The Elves were departing. An age of Man was fast becoming a reality. Like Lothlorien there was a golden autumn that declined from the time of Bilbo to that of Frodo. This accounts for the difference of vision. * * * Requiem for Lothlorien

Then silent night, new bitter born Falls cold upon this breathless wood Where spring once held for an age of Man And all that dwelt within was good.

Now comes the Lady last of all, Fairest of her fair and ancient race, Walking soundless through the deepening dark Starlit tear-lines drawn down her ageless face.

All have passed and here where it all began She seeks solace in the memory, surcease and sorrows end. In doubt of what her choice has wrought In thought of that which might have been She climbs the hill where they first met.

KS Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain Life is an adventure, not a contest.

with an open mind. not going into it negative or positive. contrary to what anyone wants to believe. My disclaimer was for those who want to dismiss those who have concerns or feel negatively about what we have actually seen. And not feel the need insult those who have concerns or to try and make everything rosey and perfect with these films. Not everyone is going to be optimistic about these films, Its no secret I'm not, and I do not apologize for that, but I still have concerns about these films especially since Peter Jackson himself said these films are going to have the same feel as his LOTR trilogy. which I do not see at this point. I'm glad I see some of the lighter tone but it seems to be becoming too slapstickish for my taste. there is a difference between making characters realistic and cartoonish, realistic characters IMO would have been better in cartoonish situations than having to try harder to believe these characters are real (in film).. Like I have said I don't need to be chuckling all the way thru the films.

...the book "Lila" by Robert M. Pirsig, author of "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". In that book he discusses the distinction between "static" quality and "dynamic" quality. If one goes to listen to a singer, for example, and he or she sings only the same familiar songs, then while you might enjoy yourself somewhat, you'd also have the nagging feeling that something was missing. This is because the experience was all static: there was no _dynamic_ element. Thus if I went to see the movie "The Hobbit", and every scene followed exactly from the book, then I would definitely feel that something was missing. For me, some of the most impressive scenes in the LOTR films were those in which the writers used their creativity to imagine things that were only alluded to in the books, or that happened offstage: Gandalf's fall with the Balrog, Boromir's death, Arwen and Aragorn. Of course, there were times when it didn't work, but that's the risk you take in being dynamic, just as the singer takes a risk when she sings a new song that the fans haven't heard before. In adapting Tolkien to the screen, the source material virtually has to be modified; if you tried to film The Lord of The Rings page by page, it would just be a boring mess. Would you really want to film Frodo sitting around Bag End for two or three weeks, as Tolkien wrote, before departing on the quest? No, you would write the scene as Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens did: this is urgent, dangerous, and Frodo has to leave immediately.

Thus I'm really looking forward to seeing the dynamic additions to The Hobbit: the White Council, Tauriel, Radagast, the history of Dale. I have a feeling that they will be my favorite moments from the films. Don't mess with my favorite female elf.

The Hobbit has a lighter feel, as in, not the high medieval drama of LOTR with epic battles etc, but is a fairy story, so the look should reflect this, but at the same time be recognizably Middle Earth, it has some of the darkness of LOTR in places but its mostly about a little Hobbit and bumbling Dwarves. So do you have a brighter lighter tone or dark and moody tone? Its a balancing act. Perhaps the colour palette will start bright and golden and slowly edge towards the blue scale and become darker? Maybe up to Rivendell the skies will be blue and the light golden? perhaps the journey afterwards will become wet and miserable dark and dangerous towards Trollshaws? its just my supposition.

In regards to the idea that PJ is making TH too light and cartoon-ish, I shared your concern, especially after the latest trailer relase, BUT, I had a very enlightening conversation with my younger brother that changed my usually stubborn mind.

TH was originally meant for children! As a children's book it must have a lighter tone compared to the epic that is the LotR. While its understandable that this isn't easy to come to grips with because both stories take place in Middle-Earth, the books, and seemingly the movies too, have slightly different broad target audiences!

I now compare this theory to the three old and new Star Wars trilogies to explain why so many people hate the newer trilogy. The older trilogy was meant for young adults/adults IMO and when that generation got older and saw the new trilogy (which was probably meant mostly for young adults/children hence jar-jar binks) they were outraged! How could a trilogy that takes place in the same universe as the older triology feel so different! Because of different target audiences!

I hope people at least take this into consideration when watching TH Don't be hasty.

sinister71 wrote: actually I have viewed everything with an open mind.

I realize that until the first film comes out, there is nothing much of any real substance fans have to discuss here--so the trailers are going to get a heck of a lot more scrutiny than is normally the case with movie trailers. But with all due respect to the OP, an "open minded" fan does not express concerns about cartoonish characters, too comical a tone, poor CGI, and unrealistic feeling Middle Earth sets two months before the film is released!

It's your right to express concerns about anything. But I would advise "those with concerns" to be careful about twisting yourselves up into knots with anxiety and worry....over a 2 minute trailer. It's a tribute to the genius of JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson that we all care so much. But discussing concerns based on a trailer that may--or may not--be legitimate issues when we finally see the full feature film is, IMHO, a recipe for an avoidable ulcer.